Part 10 in a serialization of interviews published on the 26th anniversary of the brutal murder of Donna Johnson:

Richard Walter:

Richard Walter is a forensic psychologist, criminal profiler and member of The Vidocq Society.

“Since 2005, I have talked with the sheriff (Larry Waller) and former sheriff Buice, about going over the pieces in the Donna Johnson case. I think that in 2005, if they (the investigators and district attorney) did not understand the scenario, then it becomes ‘just information.’

"...and could result in an acquittal at trial.
Then you could have a killer who could go on TV and tell everybody how he did it, and there would not be a thing we could do about it, because of the rule of double jeopardy.”

Maybe when he's 80 they will finally get what they need in order to take him in front of the Grand Jury. And when he receives life in prison everyone can rejoice at the wonderful sentence he received after all these years.

if you have not figured that out by now with all these articles and interviews with Donna's friends & relatives... you not to bright... God forbid you end up on a jury if this ever comes to trial... another word of advice? the instructions are on the bottom of the boot...

#4
Vote, vote often and never vote for Milam again
on
08/02/10 at 08:52 PM

If Richard Milam had probable cause laid into his lap he wouldn't know what to do with it. He is not a prosecutor. He is a plea negotiator supervisor. And apparently he can't tell time since Walter's group has proven that she was dead approximately early A.M. on the day her car and dogs were found at the dumpster. Maybe sometime soon Lamar County will get a new sheriff and new district attorney who have not worked together in the past so some new fresh minds at work on this case may actually have a chance to get it solved.
Why would Milam have to request the GBI to continue to do some recent interviews. If the case is still open and assigned to a GBI Agent it would seem that the GBI would want to do more interviews on their own, or do they just work on it when Milam tells them to do so.

Richard Milam is beyond being an idiot! Please do not vote for Richard again. We need to get him out of office and have someone with an opend mind in this office. I find his response to this as immoral, unethical, and down right stupid. God help us until he is out of office. God have mercy on his soul.

Mr. Walter is a very intelligent and well qualified individual and it is insulting to think our DA and our local law enforcement are not listening to this man.

It is now CRYSTAL CLEAR what buice was working with. spineless d.a. This is an utter shame and should be an outrage for citizens of lamar co. Even the criminal profiler knows that an injustice is being done even as we blog. words cannot describe the shame and the outright neglect of office from an elected official who is supposed to help protect the innocent.

Mr. Milam, since we have so many arm chair quaterbacks, you are in a loose loose situation. Go ahead and take it to trial just to proove to the B'ville jerks that there is no evidence. If you loose..oh well, thats what the public gets. Put an end to it.

Yes it is crystal clear...
1. There is no DNA evidence
2. There isnt really any evidence at all
3. The time of death is disputed, which means
that several people either didnt really see
Donna and or the spouses alibi and
statement is not the truth.

Questions:
1. Does the "suspect" have a lawyer now and
cannot be questioned further?
2. Was the suspect ever given a polygraph
test? Can the results be used in a trial?
3. Who were the wittnesses that stated they saw
Donna at different times that day? Were they
kin or friends of the "suspect?"

Perhaps you might use Dictionary.com to look up the meaning of the word libel?

Here, I'll help

libel [ˈlaɪbəl]
n
1. (Law) Law
a. the publication of defamatory matter in permanent form, as by a written or printed statement, picture, etc.
b. the act of publishing such matter
2. any defamatory or unflattering representation or statement

Unless you have a large sum of money that you aren't using, I would suggest discontinuing encouragement of a potentially expensive activity.

If the GS case was dismissed, with as much evidence as the GBI had, why would any of you think this case would be tru billed. The Jury pool here is beyond hope. I understand Milams position. The only hope would be to have the trial moved elsewhere.

Move the damn trial anywhere you want, but bring out ALL THE INFORMATION. The entire waist-high files. Let Milam represent the alleged suspect, just as he has been doing and let a real District Attorney do the job that a DA logically does. But dammit do something! Walter...if you will bring in the FBI to Barnesville, I will come and work for free.

Amen and praise the lord. I would work for free too. Apparently I don't have anything better to do than fight for justice for Donna. You know what people have said to me when I speak of this case? Don't get yourself killed.

Well, here is one conclusion that I have come up with that is in black and white. In The Herald Gazette, Tuesday, July 13,2010. Quote from Sheriff Larry Waller, "I have had conversations with Richard Walter of the Vidocq Society, and I'm trying to reach some more of those guys."
Well, what exactly is the problem with reaching them? When I try to get my phone repaired I have the pleasure of leaving messages with people in India in order to get a call back. But they call back. Have Joe Buice call them for you, Larry. You are an elected sheriff man, can't you handle the telephone? Have you no clout at all? At least tell them you know Joe, maybe they will answer you then. Then we have our Pike County Police Chief, Chuck Ledbetter, who cannot talk because Lamar County sheriff Larry Waller will not let him. I wish Merrill Greathouse were still alive, he could tell some facts, he wasn't scared. Richard Walter, Vidocq Society has pointed out that 70% of all murder cases in the United States are based on circumstantial evidence. Because murder is not a spectator sport. Here is the way I visualize circumstantial evidence. I just cooked a beautiful three layer chocolate cake. There are only three people in the house my husband, my grandson,and myself. My husband and I do not eat chocolate. I look around, my cake has a thin, long, swipe taken out of the chocolate icing. Chocolate is all around my Grandson's mouth and on his finger that he is trying desperately to lick off. NOW, who do you think may have committed this little sneaky act? He didn't confess and I did not see him do it. That nasty old circumstantial evidence. Richard Milam, just a heads up for you here, Donna Johnson is not going to be knocking on your door to give you any videos of the murder. You all take all the evidence you got. Go to a little town (WAY OFF), get twelve people with a full set of chromosomes to listen to all your facts change the names to protect the innocent/guilty and see what the strangers come up with. It would just be interesting to know. Want some cake?

"The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence."

I do not spread anything that requires medicinal care. Penicillin or otherwise. Now get off my case and get on this 26 year, quarter of a century year old case that needs an answer. Why did the ambulance go to the courthouse before the hospital? If no one can answer a question that simple, then do not compete for Are you smarter than a first grader?

This may surprise you, Anonymous responses do not carry much weight with anyone anyway. Do you know why so many people get upset with me? Because they can point at me and say, "There is that Bitch that said that in the paper, it don't bother me, I got no secrets to hide, do you? Have some guts like Linda Walker and Edna Wilson. You are either gutless or nutless.

Sheila, what do you do when you leave a message for someone and they don't respond immediately. (Do you make them a chocolate cake?) Not every person sits in an office waiting on the phone to ring. This whole blog thing is getting ridiculous. Some on here want to prosecute today, right now, even if it runs the risk of having the case thrown out. I don't know who did this horrible thing, and neither does anyone else on here. If her husband did this, I pray that he will be punished. You know, I sure would hate to think I had to depend on using the Buice name to get somene to talk to me, and I really don't think it would work anyway.

If this blog is so ridiculous then why are you still reading and posting. And why do you specifically always want to nag on what Sheila is posting. Just because you're a Waller Lover and maybe Sheila doesn't express the same fondness toward him as you do is no reason for you to always be so negative toward Sheila.
It's just really hard for the public to understand Milam's thinking that just because Milam is the D.A. and what he perceives of the evidence presented that he doesn't want to go forward with it. Maybe we'll get a new D.A. and hope that person will see all this compiled and now documented files in a different light than Milam does and we'll get it to a grand jury. Then we'll see what happens from there. One can always hope and anything is possible.

Are you new to this blog? I do not go after Sheila, as you put it, but I do disagree with her on some things, on others I donot. I don't think there are any rules anywhere that says we have to agree all the time.
Have a good day.

"Some on here want to prosecute today, right now, even if it runs the risk of having the case thrown out."

There is your quote above Linda. If Donna had been your daughter, sister, wife, loved one? Would twenty-six years seem like a long time to you? I know you have your panties in a wad about Joe Buice but forget about Joe and let's worry about Becky and Jimmy who are the last two closest loved ones to this brutally murdered girl. It does not really matter who was, is, or will be sheriff. This is about a brutally murdered girl. A young girl. Read the facts again, Linda. Sheriff's are not the priority of the moment. If you want to be pissed off fuss about Walter Geiger...he is the one who stoked the fire that never should have gone out in the first place. We all failed Miss Beulah...Read that again. Damn the sheriffs...let's find some facts and murderers. Deal?

keep up the good work sheila. some folks just roll over and act dead when things are not in simple black and white. some folks just won't give up easy . when told red is yellow, we say, no that is red. hopfully the killer or someone that knows them will come forth. just setting on butt will not do it. these or a monster that killed donna may be your neighbor or your grandchildrens neighbor. that kind of monster will do it again and again.

Thank you. The case can be called active and open for a hundred years. I guess Marilyn Monroe's is still open. And John Kennedy's but we did not see any concern, questions, remarks, etc. until Donna's Mother passed away did we? Is that sad to anyone out there besides me? TWENTY-SIX YEARS...NINE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY nights that poor Mother had to try to sleep before she was blessed with death to see her daughter. Because some SOB(S) took her away. I hope they are alive, are found guilty, do not get the death penalty but life without parole.I hope they live to be 100 miserable years old in a cell with some young studs that find them very attractive and highly stimulating.

Shelia, you cant give any facts and neither can Joe Buice. He is just running his pie hole because he wants to be in control. Joe Buice has nothing and he knows it. If he did it would have come out. That's a fact!

Why would the FBI get involved if the GBI doesn't even have enough evidence to prosecute?

THERE JUST ISN'T ENOUGH EVIDENCE. This is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Had there been enough, it would have gone forward. You can not do like the former sheriff and just go out and arrest someone because you "think" they did something, or because "I'm the damn sheriff" or whatever. You are bound by judicial canons to practice law in an ethical and professional manner.

Take the emotion out of it, the facts are there, unless some new, compelling information comes forth, there just isn't enough for a successful prosecution, it isn't the DA's fault, it isn't the GBI's fault, they are just going over what was presented to them, which is unfortunately not substatial.

I am sure the FBI would love to come in and look at a murder of this kind. Especially when you include the circumstance of Anne Morgan going missing soon after and 1/2 of the current district begging for answers. Why would anyone be against help in this case? Why would you even argue with more help? People with a real conscious should feel something. I would ask anyone who would listen for help.

I would love a sheriff and/or DA who would use every option when dealing with a man who would do something like this to ANYONE. This is not someone who just lost it and shot someone. This was methodical. This person is a psychopathic sadist murderer. This person would be someone who statistically would re-offend. There is no telling what else he has done. Let the FBI come in and exhume her again if Becky agrees. Beg them to help us find justice for Donna. It's been 26 years. You've had your chance for 26 years for goodness sake. If you insist that there is not enough evidence after 26 YEARS, maybe it's time for a different agency to give it a shot. Let them all do something amazing and work TOGETHER to solve this. Waller, GBI, FBI, Milam will all score points in my book if they can get this done no matter who gets to claim it in the end. WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THAT UNLESS YOU HAVE SELFISH MOTIVES??

Add Walter Geiger to that list and that is the most logical, well-written, unbiased and most prudent next step I have read. I am sure Jimmy and Becky would agree? Does anyone see any problem with this brain-storming session?

Thanks for Walter not letting this die. We can see what he is doing. This is about a murderer. Every comment by every person while brainstorming can be valuable. The people who are against this make me wonder why they are against it. All kinds of things come to mind when all they say is, "There is not enough evidence. We are not talking past press releases. But trust that we are still giving it all we've got after 26 years."

Everyone needs to stop the BS and come together to stop a SICK killer. He could be at home right now thinking about your sister, mother or daughter and how hot it would be to hog-tie her just so before he rapes her. He's probably planned already how he'd take her to the dump where she's belonged all alone in his opinion.

To him, women are good for nothing except being maids and sex objects anyway. Screw all the old, armchair quarterbacking, nagging women on here talking smack about catching him, right??

I see some strong women on this forum. Strong women that sign their names. You call them whatever you want, but they won't take your crap. Is that what you are afraid of? A strong woman you can't control, manipulate and use?

I wish the killer could be thrown in some place with sociopaths like him and die in the exact same way Donna did. He deserves no less. He is a monster and anyone who does not think so is sick too.

Stop the stupid arguing and find this man.

Walter, don't be compliant with those who want you to shut up and get over it. We should never stop this hunt. Buice, Waller, GBI, FBI, Walter all need to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, My Lord.

How petty and childish for people to come here argue over who screwed what up and who gets credit for solving this or that. Stop distracting from the crazy psycho.

They would represent the kind of jurisdiction that people like you are evidently "AFRAID OF." They carry their search warrant in their boot heel. They are the kind that wonder where are all your IRS records for all those years. They are Karma. Tax Paid Karma folks. They will love Barnesville. One case may just lead right on to another.......

Good Evening Einstein:
I thought I was pointing out that circumstantial evidence is not necessarily unimportant evidence. My teenage son started using skoal smokeless tobacco many years ago. I noticed as I was folding his jeans that there was a perfectly round worn circle in the right rear pocket of his jeans. When I confronted him, he told me that he just carried skoal around for his friend, that he did not use skoal. What do you believe? Do you rekon my sweet little teenager that I love dearly was a'usin that old nasty skoal? Or was it just circle-stantial circumstantial evidence? All I know is, when I told him I would start buying him polyester pants so that his buddy's skoal would not ruin his pants as easy...that skoal found another hiding place.
(I said I do not eat chocolate, I did not say I did not check to taste that the icing turned out good. I just licked mine off my finger quicker than my grandson.) OOPS! You blew your case Lawyer Anonymous.

I don't know where you learned your law skills from, but I hope to God you are not a prosecutor. Evidence is evidence. Hearsay is not allowed except in dying declarations. Our country's great legal minds allow circumstantial evidence because they obviously know more than you about these things. If you are a DA, do you know Scott Ballard?? He's a prosecutor too. Despite that, while being a DA, he ALLEGEDLY testified to help a child molester obtain parole. I am sure there is a nice court record of that testimony somewhere a FOIA request could dig up. That is unless somehow it disappeared. As far as I knew, disappearing evidence, child rape & domestic violence sympathizers only existed in the Fayette district. I don't like DA's that help criminals like that while locking up every crack head in sight. To me it tells me that they would want the same treatment if convicted of something similar. I wonder how many people Edgar Frye is indebted to? If you are of that mindset, please sign your name so we can know to kick your butt to the curb. We don't want your kind around here. In fact, actions speak louder than words, so let us just sit back and watch the actions of these fine folks.

I for one know that in criminal court, circumstantial evidence can not be used to convict someone.

Ever heard of "I object" before?

Circumstantial evidence can happen to anyone, guilty or innocent. You've never been at the wrong place at the wrong time inadverdantly? I wish the killer could have been found, tried and convicted years ago, but unfortunately it may never happen. Trying to make evidence out of very little offered is not what ethical, intelligent people would do.

Miss tolley, you sure are into this a lot more than the average person, thats obviously not too good for your mental health and well being, but good luck in your endeavors. Retired and lonesome?

Circumstantial evidence, in spite of its indirect nature, may be of great value, for instance, in highlighting inconsistencies between the behavior of a suspect and his allegations, thereby "filling in the blanks" of a probable crime scenario. For instance, although a suspect was unseen at the crime scene, the tire prints found on the scene match those of his car and a similar car was seen in the vicinity of the crime scene around the time the crime was committed. Or, sometime before the crime, the victim may have told a friend that they were afraid of the suspect, or a neighbor overheard a bitter and violent argument between the victim and the suspect in the recent past. Circumstantial evidence may be presumptive and inconclusive, admitting rebuttal by the other part, or, on the contrary, its quantity and pattern may be strong enough to substantiate a prosecution where other types of evidence are scarce and by themselves inconclusive.

One recent example of use of circumstantial evidence was the trial of Scott Lee Peterson, where the evidence presented was essentially circumstantial. A day after reporting that his eight-months pregnant wife was missing (December 23, 2002), Peterson was considered a suspect, because investigators found he had several extra-marital affairs since his marriage, and had recently been in a relationship with another woman. Petersen alleged that at the time of his wife's disappearance he was fishing at the Berkeley Marina, and was innocent. In April 2003, the remains of an unborn baby and the partial remains of a woman were found on the shores of the San Francisco Bay. Autopsy and other forensic tests identified the remains as those of his wife and her baby, although where, how, and when she died was not specifically determined. THE FBI and forensic teams conducted extensive investigations at the Petersons' house, as well as searching Scott Peterson's boat, truck, toolbox, clothes, and personal objects, in search of forensic evidence of violence such as bloodstains or weapons. No physical piece of forensic evidence was identified that could link Peterson to the murder of his wife.

Although the prosecution could not present any physical evidence of Peterson's involvement with the crime, and the defense tried to defuse the circumstantial evidence, in November 2004, the jury convicted Scott Peterson of first degree murder for killing the wife "with special circumstances," and of second degree murder for killing his unborn baby. That December, the jury recommended a death sentence for Scott Peterson. In a press conference, the jurors declared that they had found Peterson guilty, in part, because of his demeanor. Circumstantial evidence including Peterson's change in haircut and color immediately after the crime, buying a car in his mother's name, and testimony by his ex-lover that he frequently lied and said he was a widower previous to the crime, weighed heavily with the jury.

All that dancing around the issue does not prove anything. Those cases cited have some SUBSTANTIAL evidence also, along with the circumstantial evidence.

YOU CAN NOT BE CONVICTED OF A CRIME BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

"I object" -sustained-

People with real experience in the legal field know this better than old ladies that sit home and watch CSI, Matlock and lookup stuff on wikipedia for their "facts".

Your rants on here will do nothing to help with the unsolved case. If you truly want to help, why not pay to hire a private investigator with real experience instead of wearing out your keyboard with all these baseless assumptions and attacks? I'll bet it could be money well spent, and that would certianally produce more results than a bunch of bored cackling hens would.

And you are probably STUPID enough to think that when a Judge says, "the jury will ignore that remark" that the jury ignores that remark. Do you see the jury reach up and press a delete button on their head. That is the remarks that they remember most.

#18 Give us all a break. Whatever. Emotions aside....it is the right thing to do. There is evidence whether new or old, there is evidence, there is a suspect, there is a motive, and there is no reason not to take this before the grand jury. Experts have reviewed this case and they have made recommendations that have been completely ignored. What a slap in the face for the experts to be blown off by the DA and anyone else that has not taken their expertise into account and moved forward to bring justice to this case.

Sheila, don't worry about my panties -- at least I have some on. If this were a member of my family, I would want the right person to be prosecuted. I really don't know what you are trying to suggest by "are you worried about someone going free or going to jail?" As a law abiding citizen, I want the right person to be prosecuted. How can you say you have not heard of a suspects name? Everyone on this blog is waltzing around her husband's name. I do think Walter is exciting a lot of opinions and that is just what they are - opinions. I don't want to go back to the vigilante days, no matter what you think of the court system - I'll take my chances there. If you are suggesting I am trying to hide something - spit it out. I have nothing to hide.

Hi Linda,
The panties is just a "phrase often used and I think you know what I mean." I have not waltzed around her husbands name. I have specifically pointed out in at least three or four articles that I DO NOT think Jimmy killed Donna. I have no trouble at all spitting things out that I have on my mind...none at all. I want the guilty parties caught also, certainly not innocent ones. But no action would be stirred up now without the concern that Walter created when he penned the heart-touching obit for Miss Beulah. If Donna were my daughter and I knew for sure who(s) killed her. I would vigilante their a$$ so full of holes I would have to borrow more bullets from The Afghan Army. What would you do? Turn them over to these sheriffs that everyone is cursing for one reason or another? It looks like we agree on the basic here, THAT THE GUILTY SHOULD BE PUNISHED. Let me move on down to this Anonymous Idiot #21 and try to explain what I mean by the chocolate cake. Sorry, if I have offended with you with the panty line.

He may have been involved with the coast guard, maritime academy, boy scouts or similar organizations/activities that would require extensive knowledge of knots.

He likely has re-offended and may be on a sex offender registry for some type of sexual crime.

There are experts out there that would know these things. Was the knot used the best knot for hog-tying someone or a knot best used for a fishing hook?

When you get multiple big red arrows pointing at 1 or 2 people, that is evidence. You don't have to have something forensic. What do you think they did before DNA and blood types? Turn every criminal loose?

It is the RIGHT thing to do.

In my opinion, if I were called for a grand Jury, I would true bill this case if the evidence all pointed to one particular person or group of people. At the grand jury, by the way, the defense would not be able to argue their case. Motions to dismiss evidence wouldn't come until pre-trial. If evidence gets thrown out for whatever reason, ok. Dis-miss the charges and you are back to right where we are now. Ta-Da. Tell me what doesn't make sense about that?

Sheila your cake analogy is the dumbest thing I have read in a while. It is nothing like the DJ case. You have 3 people, one with chocolate around his mouth, trying to hide the chocolate on his finger. ummm excuse me but duh...there is your guilty party. They dont have this here. That is your equivalent of a smoking gun. Good Lord silly woman, get a real hobby.

I hope Shelia doesn't use pot in those cakes. The whole district would call out every resource to take her down and put her on the front page in their "press releases." They might even call in the DEA for you Shelia. Down with the DRUGS and up with the SADISTIC, TERRORIST, MURDERING RAPISTS. Do you think Milam and Ballard will write your defense for you too Shelia?? I bet not after you have signed your name here. I think they only like to help out wife beaters/rapists and child molesters though. Too bad! Better luck next life when you come back as a sociopath with a violence control problem and deviant sexual compulsions!

ANY HUMAN BEING WHO WOULD NOT WANT ASSISTANCE FROM EVERY SOURCE AVAILABLE TO SOLVE THIS QUARTER CENTURY OLD MURDER, IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. NOT PART OF A MUCH NEEDED SOLUTION. PLEASE KEEP IT ALIVE WALTER. I KNOW YOU WILL.

Something to keep in mind is, a local murder is not a "federal" crime, it is actually a state crime. Unless the person killed was a federal employee or politician or it was involved with a crime spree that went over state lines or a terrorist attack or something of that nature, the FBI would unfortunately not have jurisdiction over a local homicide such as this.

Go ahead and call them up and ask for their assistance, it can't hurt to try, but it is highly doubtful that they would try to get involved with a local homicide that took place over 20 years ago, that obviously wasn't under threir jurisdiction in the first place.

Has anyone given serious thought to hiring a P.I. that could actually do a lot of good, and could eventually help obtain the answers you so desire? I am not trying to insinuate that I hope the fbi doesn't get involved, if they will come, then great, but it is highly doubtful they will, and I am just looking at this in a realistic nature.

The people say "Bring it to a grand jury" and the answer is "THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE!!!" People say "call the FBI to re-evaluate everything." There is no reason to say no to that unless it's for selfish reasons. Ask for help or you've lost my support.

I know for a fact she called her mother and told her she was on the way to her house. When she did not show up thats when her mother went looking for her. And another thing her deceased uncle told me the morning after they found her a truck with 3 or 4 men come out of the road just before they found her.

any glue may solve this in the end. look and think people in that area. next door may be the murderer and staulking your children or grandchildren. she sure did not do it to herself and somebody knows who did. i praise the ones keeping this alive and hope it lives on way after an arrest.

I am being totally serious here. No kidding. Honestly. I want you to erase everything in your mind for a moment. Now...sign off and sign back onto this blog. Look at only the two pictures at the top. Which man looks as if he has good sense?
Believe me there is only one answer and you know it.

I keep reading all these arguments about whether or not there is enough evidence, but there are two things everybody seems to have missed.

This Richard Walter guy is a member of Vidocq. He's one of 82 inducted into this society- picked from a pool of the tens of thousands of investigators, profilers and forensic psychologists all over the world. This guy is no small potatoes. He's seen his share of complex murder cases- I dare-say he's seen ten times as many as Milam will ever see.

This guy has seen every detail of the case- every interview, every bit of evidence, every photo. If anybody knows when there's sufficient evidence to present to a Grand Jury, don't you think somebody like Walter would be qualified to make that call? Walter says he begged them to open the case to the Grand Jury. WHY does Milam continue to ignore the judgement of a world-renowned expert?

Also, everybody seems concerned with the possibility of an aquittal and double-jeopardy. If the Grand Jury finds there isn't sufficient evidence to go to trial, that's not the same as a "not-guilty" verdict- just means they have to gather some more evidence before they bring it to trial. What would be the harm in presenting it to the GJ to see what they say?

But you have failed to notice that Richard Milam is in the "Evidence Protection Program. You must give credit when credit is due, elcie. You are obviously smarter than the average bear. "Yeah...Boo Boo."

Only registered users may comment on stories. Please login or register to post comments. Your browser must support cookies.